Mutawakkil, Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru v. Geri et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying plaintiff's 29 motion for an order of protection of legal documents, exhibits, grievance and medical documents in this action. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/31/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRINCE ATUM-RA UHURU MUTAWAKKIL
also known as NORMAN C. GREEN,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-816-bbc
v.
JOAN GERL, ROBERT PATTEN,
THOMAS TAYLOR, LEONARD JOHNSON,
JEREMY McDANIEL, JAMES BOISEN,
PETER HUIBREGTSE and KELLY TRUMM,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru Mutawakkil, also known as Norman Green,
has filed a motion that he calls “order of protection of legal documents, exhibits, grievance
and medical documents in this action.” Dkt. #29. In an accompanying declaration, dkt.
#30, plaintiff says that prison officials confiscated all of his legal materials while transferring
him to another prison. After he arrived at the new prison, officials put his legal property in
eight shopping bags in no apparent order and told him he could keep only four of the bags.
In his motion (but not in his sworn declaration), plaintiff says that unnamed officials refused
to allow him to go through all the bags to pick out the most important documents. As a
result, he says he is now missing various documents that he needs for this case, including “all
the exhaustion documents,” unspecified “medical records” and a conduct report that is the

1

“fulcrum” of his excessive force claim. Also in his motion (but not in his declaration),
plaintiff alleges that unnamed officials “refused to allow the property to be picked up” by a
friend or family member outside the prison and that the documents are “about to be
destroyed.” Dkt. #29 at 2-3. Plaintiff does not explain what relief he wants, but presumably
he wants the documents returned or the ability to search them to retrieve those that he needs
for this case.
Plaintiff raises other issues in his motion, such as allegations that defendants
transferred him and confiscated his documents in retaliation for filing this lawsuit, but I
cannot resolve those issues at this time. Generally, it is not this court’s practice to consider
new allegations of retaliation in the context of a pending lawsuit because they are outside of
the issues raised in the complaint, may disrupt the proceedings and cause undue delay. The
only exception to this rule arises in situations in which prison officials are preventing the
plaintiff from litigating his case. Accordingly, I will focus on plaintiff’s allegations that
prison officials are denying him access to documents that he needs for this case. If plaintiff
wishes to challenge any other actions by prison officials, he will have to file a new lawsuit.
In their response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants acknowledge that plaintiff was
transferred to a different prison and some of plaintiff’s legal documents were confiscated,
which they say was because the amount of documents plaintiff possessed exceeded what was
allowed under prison rules. However, defendants deny that they are about to destroy the
property or that they refused any request by plaintiff to choose the most important
documents. Rather, they filed prison records and an affidavit from the program support

2

supervisor showing that plaintiff made a request that officials approved to allow a person
named Diane Block to take possession of the documents. Dkt. #39.
Unless plaintiff comes forward with admissible evidence showing that Diane Block
did not pick up the documents on his behalf, there is nothing the court can order at this
time. If defendants’ version of events is accurate, prison officials no longer have possession
of the documents that are the subject of plaintiff’s motion, so I cannot order defendants to
return the documents or allow plaintiff to go through them. It will be up to plaintiff to
contact Diane Block and obtain any documents he needs from her. I anticipate that the
relevant prison officials at Waupun Correctional Institution will work with plaintiff in good
faith to determine how he can get the documents he needs without violating prison rules on
property limits. To that end, I request that counsel for defendants provide a copy of this
order to the prison officials most likely to be responsible for that issue.
The only obviously time sensitive issue presented by plaintiff’s loss of custody of some
of his legal documents is that defendants recently filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his
due process claim. Dkt. #34. It seems unlikely that plaintiff will need any additional
documents to respond to this motion because defendants already filed a number of
documents about the disciplinary hearing at issue and plaintiff’s grievance history. Dkt.
##36-37. However, if plaintiff is unable to obtain documents he believes he needs before
the deadline for responding to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he may file a
motion for an extension of time then. If plaintiff chooses to file such an extension, he will

3

have to do the following: (1) identify with as much specificity as he can which documents
he needs but has been unable to obtain; (2) explain why he believes he needs the documents
in order to respond to defendants’ motion; (3) explain what actions he has taken thus far
to get the documents and what he will do next; and (4) identify how much extra time he
needs and explain why. If plaintiff fails to do any of these things, the court may deny any
requests for more time.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion filed by plaintiff Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru
Mutawakkil, also known as Norman Green, for an “order of protection of legal documents,
exhibits, grievance and medical documents in this action,” dkt. #29, is DENIED.
Entered this 31st day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4